YASHWANT VARMA,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned standing counsel.
(2.) This revision is directed against an order of the Tribunal which has proceeded to reverse the decision taken by the first appellate authority exonerating the revisionist from the levy of penalty under Section 15 A (1) (o) of the U.P. Trade Act 1948. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the total quantity of goods had not been correctly declared in the import documents and that on a physical inspection it was found that the total quantity had been suppressed by as much as 50%. The inspection of the imported goods was undertaken at a check post where the vehicle was apprehended. In view thereof the Tribunal has proceeded to take the position that there was a clear intent to evade payment of tax.
(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has relied upon the following two decisions to submit that the levy of penalty was unjustified. 1. M/s. Flosyn Fragrances, Noida v. Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. Lucknow [2005 NTN (Vol.26)-405. 2. M/s. Link Marketing Services v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2006 U.P.T.C.-1194] ;